CPU's and memory access

Jefferson

Junior Member
Aug 4, 2006
1
0
0
Hi everybody!

Like many others, I am currently thinking of upgrading my computer. I have a XP3200+, and gaming performance is my only concern.

So, my choice seems to be between a Core 2 Duo or a AMD X2. I have read lots of benchmarks and they all favor Core 2 Duo when measuring framerates in games it seems. However, I also read that the AMD's have the advantage of a 'on-die memory controller' or something similar, which gives them faster memory access (did I get that right?).

So what I'm wondering is, what effect does this faster memory access have? In which situations will its effect be noticeable? What value should it be given when comparing Core 2 Duo to AMD X2?

An easy answer here could of course be that Core 2 Duo pushes higher framerates and therefore simply is better, even with the lack of on-die memory controller. What I'm curious about though, is if average FPS really gives you the whole picture? I mean, higher average FPS doesnt necessarily mean 'smoother' gameplay right?

Isnt it true that behind two FPS numbers, lets say 200 and 100 FPS, could theoretically hide performances like this:

200 FPS: 250 FPS 95% of the time, with severe FPS drops (say < 20 FPS) when there's alot going on.

100 FPS: 110 FPS 95% of the time, with less severe FPS drops (say > 50 FPS).

Comparing these two scenarios, surely the 100 FPS average would be much easier on the eyes, while in a benchmark showing as very inferior. Could a difference similar to these 2 scenarios exist between 2 different system setups?

I guess my worry about missing out on the advantage of the on-die memory controller comes from comparing my Athlon XP to a friends Athlon 64. No matter how much I cranked up the settings on his computer, dropping average framerates way below what I had on my XP, the game still retained a certain 'smoothness'. At the same average FPS, all games always seemed much more playable on his computer. Amount of RAM, graphics card and OS installation was pretty much identical. Was I foolish to believe the on-die memory controller was the difference?

Thanks for reading!
 

Sable

Golden Member
Jan 7, 2006
1,127
98
91
Conroe is faster despite not having an onboard controller. Hats off to intel, it really is an excellent processor.
 

Cheex

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2006
3,123
0
0
Conroe all the way.
Core 2 Duo smokes all...in fact...at stock speeds the E6600 is just about equal with, if not slightly better than the FX-62.
The E6700 and X6800 beat ALL contenders.

;)